Mere Baap Pehle AAP!!!

So ‘Mere Baap Pehle AAP’ has finally become the slogan of today’s Indian politics, at least the politics of adjustment, if the word compromise stinks much to make our holy nationalist politicians feel awkward before public. But the problem really lies somewhere behind the scenes appearing after Delhi election result specially after the confirmation of AAP emergence toward power. It is beyond any doubt about the logic of the emergence of ‘AAP’ or signification of the syntax ‘Aam Admi Party’. The syntax has broken the modernity of traditional political representation toward creating a condition, using the election transit amid the ‘power politics’ and ‘politics of power’ on either side. The election transit has given ‘AAP’ enough space to place their manifesto of promises. Nothing more than saying that this ‘AAP’ has used this ‘election transit’ most effectively for two reasons: first, they did not have any formational tradition; second, they used this ‘no-tradition’ condition to transcend the traditional political representational parameters and popular political forms. The popular nomenclature or appearance or logo of this no-tradition condition is, as they used significantly, the ‘anti corruption’ party. In this way ‘AAP’ has grafted its root in Indian political system leaving even Anna’s anti-corruption logo far behind.

Genealogy of a condition faces challenge

Now if this is the genealogy of Arvind Kejriwal and his ‘Aam Admi Party’ or ‘Aap’ we are witnessing a different ball game after the election where this genealogy has become a new condition where the politics of power is playing a new trick. In every hung-house condition in Parliamentary politics, apart from very few instances of real political-ideological combinations, there somehow a horse-trading situation generates where either horse trading or any nearing post-poll adjustment rules the order. But this time the situation is made up by new colour combinations. The anti-corruption logo or the ‘AAP’ has gained enough political support but an ‘iconic’ short of new power destination. The public support for ‘AAP’ has replaced two political conditions: one, it is placed on the debris of political corruptions and this time in the regime of Congress; secondly, it has gone against all traditional political representations, as said earlier, that include parties like BJP too. The new condition has therefore replaced all mythic political forms. But this not the real end in the Indian constitutionality and this time it is not evident in the outcome where Congress has constitutionally rendered their support to ‘AAP’ to for the government. The real trick lies in the principle behind where real power politics still works even after the election. Now Congress is taking stance to let ‘AAP’ sit in power and BJP is in traditional opposition by criticizing ‘AAP’ for taking Congress support.

The ball game therefore lies in the bourgeois ideology where Congress suddenly has come forward to render support to its destroyer who has already promised to enquire all corruption incidents with a clear intimidation of putting the guilty behind the bar. BJP might have enjoyed the situation for reasons like, first, they are the newly emerged political force in four states; and secondly, they defeated Congress in four state assemblies. But it remains as disturbing as it is for Congress to define the long underestimated ‘AAP’ and their emergence in Indian politics. Both Congress and BJP do not have any new or de novo approach to deal with ‘AAP’ politics. So they went on attacking ‘AAP’ quite traditionally which did not work in the election. Basically these political parties with their old mythic traditions had a tough fight with a newer and very unknown ‘condition’. So the real fight took place between ‘corruption’ or ‘establishments’ and anti-incumbent promises (conditions) that not only kept both political establishments away from power but gave them a lesson of new political identity beyond their attainability.

But bourgeoisie comprising of two such major parties and their political allies won’t let it go likewise. They, as said, have started a new ball game to transform this new condition into another mythic ‘form’, as they are, with all flaws and of course new corruptions to restore the political equilibratory system. Commercial media houses have already started excavating flaws and corruption of AAP. Congress for this reason has rendered its support to keep ‘AAP’ away from the newly emerged condition that actually gained the public support.

Pressure mounting on 'AAP'

With that announcement of support even before ‘AAP’ could come out with any decision the Indian bourgeoisie has come out with a different trick. Both Congress and BJP have tactfully started clamouring that 'AAP' should form the government and fulfill what it has promised in the manifesto. Congress has already rendered its support, albeit not obviously unconditional but performance based as said the former Chief Minister Sheila Dixit. BJP has decided to sit in opposition bench. Now the question arises why 'AAP' could not stick to its earlier position of not accepting the power putting therefore counter pressure on Congress and BJP? Bourgeoisie, precisely Bourgeois parties in this way had made its first triumph to settle its position by transferring the onus on the third or newly emerged force and the so called third force has consequently placed its submission. 'AAP' however kept on justifying its position and the renewal of its owned condition by playing a 'counter' but a very old fashioned prank as taking 'mass consent' using new communication technology. Quite naturally with 74%, as they announced, of people's ‘social network based’ consent the 'AAP' has decided to form the government not by committing Congress’ support overtly.

In this way, a new political power condition is ready to emerge where for the first time bourgeois parties will play on and common people and media will focus on fulfillment of promises with an unprecedented importance thus overruling the precedence of having almost nothing from the manifestoes fulfilled earlier in the history Indian democracy. BJP on the other hand is not expected to fulfill its promises given in three other states, Madhyapradesh, Rajasthan, and Chattisgarh with such a heed. So is Congress in Mizoram. But here the bourgeois parties or the bourgeoisie is paying its full attention to corner ‘AAP’ to a large extent before fulfillment. It is like two contestants are expecting the third contestant doing good result in the same examination.

AAP-promises-government axis

Now if anyone moves into the promises made by ‘AAP’ it would come out that it caters only on the unfulfilled or fake promises of Congress or categorically the ruling party. So they have made their agenda quite realistic and plausible to accomplish. So the AAP on the one hand provided plausible or realistic promises which convinced a large section of urban population and made a successful alternative to all traditional manifestoes on the other having propagated a clear message that — okay, we have come out with a newer pledge to execute the manifesto which others did never before. Such anti-establishment message or manifesto is very common to those parties and platforms which people usually do not pay much attention to, and categorized ‘others’ in media poll analyses. But this time with the streams of Lokpal-Lokayukta debate people of Delhi have done it which was quite naturally unexpected to all established parties. AAP has therefore emphasized particularly on civic issues like, water and electricity issues, which are long unfulfilled in many Indian states. These two aspects on the other hand are prime essentials of industrialization for which citizens have long been deprived of getting minimum civic amenities. Some state governments are providing extra-requisite water and electricity to those industries at the cost of civic development. So it is not the question of BJP or Congress to accomplish the job but it is the ‘AAP’ which has made it an issue of accomplishment by breaking all earlier manifesto-narratives. That basically and suddenly unites BJP and Congress to say that — we should give AAP a chance to fulfill what they promised, as if they have a long tradition of fulfilling their promises!! This invitation therefore is neither natural at all nor is it the real support being rendered by the Congress already. It has become an acid test for ‘AAP’ to accomplish the promises.

But it is for sure that the ‘AAP’ syntax is now made up not just to fulfill the promises but to shatter all earlier development narratives which Arvind Kejriwal and his associates know it very well and the difficulty to attain it too along with. But the AAP leadership despite all impossibilities has accepted the prods of all opposition parties and come forward to form the government without majority. It has also accepted the onus, as given by two major parties, to form the holy government taking it for granted that Congress and BJP will never support each other. So it is the only party to form a minority government. Bourgeois political forces have again won the game. The only hope remains that AAP is not the proletariat force. So it would any day be ready maintain the equilibrium of the Indian political system. The revolutionary destination of Aam Admi Party would therefore be to form a minority government to avoid another election and also to pay respect to the wish of the traditional political rulers.

Deterritorialization of Culture

This newer term corresponds to a newer cultural space [chiefly under western and also in developing countries’ industrialization strategies] that has been created because of deterritorialization of traditional cultural spaces. It even appears to be mandatory along with the natural institutional growth toward modernization. According to Garcia Canclini, this notion refers to ‘the loss of the natural relation between culture with geographic and social territory [including] relocalizations of new and old forms of symbolic production’. Basically with the industrial [technological] modernization, random inflow of popular cultural elements and forms are deterritorializing traditional cultural spaces and releasing cultural signs from any fixed time and space. Noted analyst James Lull has stated that ‘deterritorialization is the [partial] disintegration of human and symbolic constellations and patterns... it is a consequence of the cultural disjuncture... it is one indication of the cultural change that the disjunctures stimulate’.

But theorists interestingly while further deriving the term ‘deterritorialization’ have time and again exemplified the migration of third world people into ‘more developed’ specially western territories. Naturally this migration causes severe uprooting of the traditional cultural base and major disruption of its valuation that compulsively drives individuals to adapt desirably [or undesirably] new cultural base elements for leading a better cultural life. Prof. Lull exemplified this kind of deterritorialization that the African and Asian slave trade in colonial North America, Brazil, and the Carribbean countries ago...and illegal immigrant Mexican farm workers in United States’. In India also such migrations [though within the national territory but in such a vast location, migration often results in the transportation of individual belongings more than 2000 kilometers from one part to another corner of the country] had been a major occurrence always, both in its colonial and post colonial times, from less developed areas to the bit more affluent places. But theorists like Canclini, Lull in this context do not usually accept any definition of newer cultural codification as they desire to identify this phenomenon as quite natural and inevitable as well. They leave it as purely a ‘human matter’.

But the deterritorialization of culture howsoever occurs in human mind, under any circumstance, through only physical migration from any kind of ‘less to affluent’, this theoretical proposition has been reduced to an idealized end that ‘culture never dies, even in conditions of orchestrated repression’. But this is also an open ended conclusion that people from most of the developing countries, while migrating to a better place for enhanced living, invariably opt out the root cultural praxis to make room for adopting better cultural elements and newer praxis. Only thing may be left alive that people would perform some codes of their root cultural practices superficially that would never percolate to the next generations, e.g., organizing Durga Puja festival by the non resident Bengalee people. This global festival is performed quite differently across regions and settlements outside Bengal keeping the rituals almost unchanged. Here this festival can’t make a course of life along with other popular codifications of that region. Baudrillard once very interestingly quoted that ‘we don’t want nature, we want parks; we similarly don’t want exact course of religion but the Durga Puja as festival only. So it is quite naturally discursive and so deterritorialized. We can also argue that a person migrating more than thousand miles for, say, knitting cut piece cloths from far east of India to the farthest west, say, Gujarat, this migration definitely would cause a severe damage to the cultural practices as the person would have to adopt newer cultural praxis as common or essential cultural interfaces and of course along with some superficial ethno-religious practices, what Lull has nucleated as complete root ‘culture’. In terms of social mediation this phenomenon, across traditional class limitations, in the long term would definitely affect individual’s ideology toward his own life pattern. Therefore he has become completely deterritorialized.

Arjun Appadurai argues in this context, ‘...deterritorialization...sometimes...creates exaggerated and intensified senses of criticism or attachment to politics in the home state. Deterritorialization, whether of Hindus, Sikhs, Palestinians, or Ukranians, is now at the core of a variety of global fundamentalisms, Islamic and Hindu fundamentalism...’. But this example does not ensure common people’s disorientation toward such, if we at all say fundamentalism in general, because apart from fanatic religious outbreaks, or counter political outbreaks, fundamentalist principles, even after killing innocent mass, still comfortably exist both peripheries in common psyche of general people who do not at all participate in any such practices.

Thus deterritorialization analysis must accept the theoretical process of discourse analysis so that the signification of ‘deterritorialization’, ‘fundamentalism’, ‘symbolic power’ and many other terms can be perpetrated and understood appropriately. However deterritorialization of culture should not claim any importance in a determinate cultural space because ‘class’ analysis even can perform here better than deterritorialization. But on the other hand such deterritorialization motion can well initiate an important debate on globalization of culture. It is not really the postmodernism in the alternative or any such related elitist theories what can rescue popular culture from being either dominated by the nationalist force or transcorporate ‘global’ force. The prime question here to be raised is the people’s struggle and the resultant cultural practice which is completely independent of any given format. If it is political or cultural it would then initiate ideology, as Hall argues, ‘ideology can no longer be seen as a dependent variable, a mere reflection of a pre-given reality in the mind. Nor are its outcomes predictable by derivation from some simple determinist logic. They depend on the balance of forces in a historical conjuncture: on the politics of signification...’.